Ill say this Milost. Ill watch it again and ill read those interviews you mentioned, because i havent. And it all might make me see those scenes in a different way. If i end up feeling like it makes more sense then ill tell you that you're right. I have no problem doing that.

I do know that Burton finds his first movie to be boring and without substance. I dont think it's boring at all. They're both entertaining movies. If there is any substance i find that it's in 89 and not Batman Returns. So again, me and Mr. Burton disagree lol. If there's some substance it's down to a couple of tiny scenes between Bruce and Alfred or when he visits the site when his parents were killed. But they're so quick that i can't really call the movie a film of substance. It's how i view Man Of Steel. Really enjoyed the movie. There are a couple of really quick scenes that show some substance or weight, but they vanish and so i mainly look at MOS as a popcorn sci-fi/superhero movie. Of course im not comparing, as i think there's so much more creativity with the Burton visuals.

__________________"Guys, what would be your reaction if Alfred was Batgirl in this movie? You go watch the movie, everything cool, halfway through, Alfred becomes Batgirl."

The ironic thing about all this to me is that I think Milost has argued the point far more competently than I believe Burton himself would be able to. I legitimately question whether Burton would be able to even make any sort of coherent statement about that plot point if asked today, haha. That's not a knock of the film, more just on Burton for being a bit of a space cadet.

The ironic thing about all this to me is that I think Milost has argued the point far more competently than I believe Burton himself would be able to. I legitimately question whether Burton would be able to even make any sort of coherent statement about that plot point if asked today, haha. That's not a knock of the film, more just on Burton for being a bit of a space cadet.

Still my favourite director and I suspect he is more intelligent than people give him credit for.

I think I saw it in the "Burton on Burton" book. It might not be complete disdain, but I know his views on it aren't exactly positive. Then again, there are a lot of artists that criticize their own work. Looking forward it the nature of the beast.

He seemed proud of it in the making of feature for the behind the scenes of the blu ray, so who knows. That was 2004 and 2005 though. We all have a tendency to contradict ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane52630

I could see why, the first film was a more studio controlled film.

Yup. It's like Batman Begins or other studio films out there. He had to prove himself until WB let go of the reigns. Only problem with that is, sometimes a little restriction makes people more creative. By letting Burton or any other filmmaker/writer/etc. do they want, that can potentially kill it because it's too "them".

Batman Returns is definitely his baby whereas Batman 1989 felt like a true collaboration. While I don't think 100% studio movies or 100% independent is the way to go, I think a balance of both is a happy medium. Producers and studios shouldn't dictate everything, but there are some basics that could prove valuable. I think the upcoming Robocop remake is dealing with this situation now. It's a tough call with how much of anything is too much.

By the way, great pics. Do you know what scale that Batwing is? I know there are pics of the Gotham bigatures that are as tall or taller than the crew, but I was curious what scale it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

The ironic thing about all this to me is that I think Milost has argued the point far more competently than I believe Burton himself would be able to. I legitimately question whether Burton would be able to even make any sort of coherent statement about that plot point if asked today, haha. That's not a knock of the film, more just on Burton for being a bit of a space cadet.

I agree. I personally think Burton is a hack (now) and a bit scatter brained. He's this weird, artsy fartsy guy and he knows it. He's a weirdo more interested in the visuals than the substance (which is why he took Batman on as a project, he identified with the iconography of all of it, especially the concept of "Batman vs. Joker"). I'm a huge fan of his early work, I love most of his films and dug his vision. Now, it seems same old, same old. Then again, I feel that way with all directors. That's not an insult to Burton, he's done fine in my book, but, I dunno. The same style gets old. I could say the same thing for Scorsese or any number of directors though.

But Batman 1989 isn't "his". I think that's the misconception with the role of a director where they're overvalued. They're more or less the guy that helps make sure the thing doesn't fall apart while also letting some (or most) of their vision spill into it. They're the general, but they shouldn't get all the credit.

There was a LOT of creative input with the first Batman. Studio had a say, Burton had a say, Nicholson had a say, Keaton was free to find his own character (his recent interview for Robocop, the persona of his Batman was all his from the movement to the voice), the writers were a mishmash. If it was all Sam Hamm, it might have been pretty bad (sure, his scripts were more comic accurate, but they were strange). If it was all Tim Burton, it would have been a straight freak show. If it was all the Studio, we'd have nothing but Prince (no way would they have let Elfman collaborate). Etc. etc.

Collaboration is good. Having second or third film crew units are good. Batman 1989 was like a marathon (I think one of the producers mention this), where it was like guerrilla shooting. There's no way Burton shot some of those great action sequences, or that Axis Chemicals shoot out. Like with Aliens and Star Wars, there was also this tension between the English and American crews. So you have everyone pouring their hearts into this thing.

It's like LOTR or Breaking Bad, which are great examples of collaboration. One of my favorite scenes in LOTR is the ending of the Fellowship with the Amon Hen battle and Boromir vs. the Uruk Hai. You know who filmed that whole thing? Who brought in his own personal touch? The New Line producer. He directed that while other crews were filming all over New Zealand. The only thing Jackson touched was the editing.

If you have one mind controlling all that, I'm not convinced it will be as good. That's why I feel Batman 1989, as studio controlled as it had been, has great moments that shine threw the "Prince music" or script decisions. With all those different things, it creates something that ends up being it's own thing. So with like, the Vicki stuff. I'm sure Burton couldn't come up with clear reasoning for it, but at the time, someone involved did, or else those scenes wouldn't be in there.

Yup. It's like Batman Begins or other studio films out there. He had to prove himself until WB let go of the reigns. Only problem with that is, sometimes a little restriction makes people more creative. By letting Burton or any other filmmaker/writer/etc. do they want, that can potentially kill it because it's too "them".

I know plenty will disagree with me, but I think Batman Returns was almost too much of his "baby". I think if Burton was faced with a bit more restriction/studio collaboration on BR, it would have benefitted the film and the Batman series in the long run. There are plenty of great ideas and moments in the finished film, but some things could have been reigned in a bit or modified to make an even better film.

Quote:

I agree. I personally think Burton is a hack (now) and a bit scatter brained. He's this weird, artsy fartsy guy and he knows it. He's a weirdo more interested in the visuals than the substance (which is why he took Batman on as a project, he identified with the iconography of all of it, especially the concept of "Batman vs. Joker"). I'm a huge fan of his early work, I love most of his films and dug his vision. Now, it seems same old, same old. Then again, I feel that way with all directors. That's not an insult to Burton, he's done fine in my book, but, I dunno. The same style gets old. I could say the same thing for Scorsese or any number of directors though.

I'll agree with you there. Burton is now the definition of a studio hack, which is sad to me. I don't agree that it's because his style has gotten old, because I think his style changed starting with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Burton's biggest problem, to me, is that he all does now is adapt pre-existing stories/franchises for the screen...and then fills them with an abundance of CGI...and Johnny Depp. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland, Sweeney Todd, Dark Shadows are all adaptations. Even Big Fish was adapted from a novel.

One of my favorite movies ever is Edward Scissorhands. It's a film that is visually remarkable, utterly original (while still influenced by other works), and it is truly beautiful. There's so much emotion in it. Everything from the score to set the design and the acting (one of Johnny Depp's best performances ever despite him hardly speaking) are top notch...and the story came from Burton himself. It was a passion project for him, and making Batman a success allowed him to make Edward Scissorhands, but why hasn't he made something like it ever again? Does he not have any more original ideas for films? Has he lost his passion?

Another great film by Burton, Beetlejuice, was not written by Burton himself but was still based on an original screenplay, much like Ed Wood was (another great Burton film). Now we're hearing rumors of Burton gearing up to make Beetlejuice 2, so his streak of making films based on pre-existing franchises continues!

Quote:

But Batman 1989 isn't "his". I think that's the misconception with the role of a director where they're overvalued. They're more or less the guy that helps make sure the thing doesn't fall apart while also letting some (or most) of their vision spill into it. They're the general, but they shouldn't get all the credit.

There was a LOT of creative input with the first Batman. Studio had a say, Burton had a say, Nicholson had a say, Keaton was free to find his own character (his recent interview for Robocop, the persona of his Batman was all his from the movement to the voice), the writers were a mishmash. If it was all Sam Hamm, it might have been pretty bad (sure, his scripts were more comic accurate, but they were strange). If it was all Tim Burton, it would have been a straight freak show. If it was all the Studio, we'd have nothing but Prince (no way would they have let Elfman collaborate). Etc. etc.

Collaboration is good. Having second or third film crew units are good. Batman 1989 was like a marathon (I think one of the producers mention this), where it was like guerrilla shooting. There's no way Burton shot some of those great action sequences, or that Axis Chemicals shoot out. Like with Aliens and Star Wars, there was also this tension between the English and American crews. So you have everyone pouring their hearts into this thing.

It's like LOTR or Breaking Bad, which are great examples of collaboration. One of my favorite scenes in LOTR is the ending of the Fellowship with the Amon Hen battle and Boromir vs. the Uruk Hai. You know who filmed that whole thing? Who brought in his own personal touch? The New Line producer. He directed that while other crews were filming all over New Zealand. The only thing Jackson touched was the editing.

If you have one mind controlling all that, I'm not convinced it will be as good. That's why I feel Batman 1989, as studio controlled as it had been, has great moments that shine threw the "Prince music" or script decisions. With all those different things, it creates something that ends up being it's own thing. So with like, the Vicki stuff. I'm sure Burton couldn't come up with clear reasoning for it, but at the time, someone involved did, or else those scenes wouldn't be in there.

Well said. I definitely think Batman 89 was a "perfect storm" of sorts.

__________________I'll be there... around every corner, in every empty room,as inevitable as your guilty conscience...

I'll agree with you there. Burton is now the definition of a studio hack, which is sad to me. I don't agree that it's because his style has gotten old, because I think his style changed starting with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Burton's biggest problem, to me, is that he all does now is adapt pre-existing stories/franchises for the screen...and then fills them with an abundance of CGI...and Johnny Depp. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland, Sweeney Todd, Dark Shadows are all adaptations. Even Big Fish was adapted from a novel.

I read a long time ago that during Burton's best period (or at least what's to me his best period: Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Ed Wood) he had serious troubles keeping his career moving on. Yes, Batman and E.S. did good, but Batman Returns was always compared to the humongous success of the first one; TNBC was not a success (until it became a cult film years later) and so was Ed Wood.

At one point, Burton said that he thought his career as a director was going to be over, sop he knew he had to make a hug financial success again, so he went after other things like Mars Attacks! (where he went with CGI for the first time) and things like Willy Wonka or Alice, which seemed more marketable. And somewhere in between, he just lost his way.

I still like seeing Tim Burton films even today, I enjoy things like Alice or Corpse Bride but didn't care for Charlie and haven't seen Dark Shadows yet. I wish he could do more than remakes or re-imaginings. Batman Returns is my favorite Batman and Tim Burton film overall, I think his style really works there and I'm a sucker for Batman stories set at Christmas/in the snow.

Another great film by Burton, Beetlejuice, was not written by Burton himself but was still based on an original screenplay, much like Ed Wood was (another great Burton film). Now we're hearing rumors of Burton gearing up to make Beetlejuice 2, so his streak of making films based on pre-existing franchises continues!

Um... what about Big Eyes?

- Entirely original project
- Screenplay by the writers of Ed Wood
- A cast of Non-Burtonites (No Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter)
- A reported $10 million budget
- Working with Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz

Of course I'm interested, I'll see it, and I hope it's great. But it still doesn't really make up for his lack of originality over the past 2 decades, does it? About damn time he did something like this, though.

__________________I'll be there... around every corner, in every empty room,as inevitable as your guilty conscience...

Still my favourite director and I suspect he is more intelligent than people give him credit for.

Oh, just to be clear I wasn't calling Burton unintelligent. People can be simultaneously brilliant and scatter-brained. I mean just listen to his Batman commentaries...the guy struggles to put together a coherent sentence and seems far more involved with the more abstract aspects of his films than the nuts and bolts, basic narrative type of stuff that more "normal" directors are dialed into. And that's what makes Burton, Burton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

But Batman 1989 isn't "his". I think that's the misconception with the role of a director where they're overvalued. They're more or less the guy that helps make sure the thing doesn't fall apart while also letting some (or most) of their vision spill into it. They're the general, but they shouldn't get all the credit.

There was a LOT of creative input with the first Batman. Studio had a say, Burton had a say, Nicholson had a say, Keaton was free to find his own character (his recent interview for Robocop, the persona of his Batman was all his from the movement to the voice), the writers were a mishmash. If it was all Sam Hamm, it might have been pretty bad (sure, his scripts were more comic accurate, but they were strange). If it was all Tim Burton, it would have been a straight freak show. If it was all the Studio, we'd have nothing but Prince (no way would they have let Elfman collaborate). Etc. etc.

Collaboration is good. Having second or third film crew units are good. Batman 1989 was like a marathon (I think one of the producers mention this), where it was like guerrilla shooting. There's no way Burton shot some of those great action sequences, or that Axis Chemicals shoot out. Like with Aliens and Star Wars, there was also this tension between the English and American crews. So you have everyone pouring their hearts into this thing.

It's like LOTR or Breaking Bad, which are great examples of collaboration. One of my favorite scenes in LOTR is the ending of the Fellowship with the Amon Hen battle and Boromir vs. the Uruk Hai. You know who filmed that whole thing? Who brought in his own personal touch? The New Line producer. He directed that while other crews were filming all over New Zealand. The only thing Jackson touched was the editing.

If you have one mind controlling all that, I'm not convinced it will be as good. That's why I feel Batman 1989, as studio controlled as it had been, has great moments that shine threw the "Prince music" or script decisions. With all those different things, it creates something that ends up being it's own thing. So with like, the Vicki stuff. I'm sure Burton couldn't come up with clear reasoning for it, but at the time, someone involved did, or else those scenes wouldn't be in there.

I agree with all of that.

That said, there are obvious downsides too if you have too many cooks in the kitchen, and I also think there's something to be said for the unity of vision you get when you have a talented writer/director involved. But I definitely agree that Batman 89 was a perfect storm of sorts and it is certainly to Burton's credit for such a young guy to not a let a production that huge get away from him completely. While he shouldn't get all the credit, I'm quite certain that it wouldn't have been the Batman 89 we know and love without him.

Lack of CGI? I remember reading interviews on the making of Alice In Wonderland (2010) about how it bothered Burton that he didn't have anything for him and the actors to shoot to b/c it was mostly green screen and nothing practical. Which was the opposite of C&TCF (though it did use CG when it required it) since he was happy to have sets that he and the cast could shoot and act to. In the commentary for POTA he talked about how the studio wanted the apes digital instead of using actors in make up. Fox got there way a decade later in the reboot thanks to Avatar In Big Fish the studio or sfx guys talked about having the circus stuff performed digitally but not by real circus performers and Burton was against that as well. Originally for Mars Attacks! Burton wanted the martians to be created using stop motion effects. But the studio and sfx team convinced Burton into making 'em digital b/c it would be cheaper that way. Corpse Bride and Frankenweenie (2012) are both stop motion animated movies. Burton may have lost his touch, but he hasn't lost his desire to use practical effects whenever possible.

I still believe Keaton looks more like Batman with his facial expressions and convincing eyes than any other live action interpretation, I guess we'll see how well Ben does but for some reason I don't see him touching what Michael did.

I still believe Keaton looks more like Batman with his facial expressions and convincing eyes than any other live action interpretation, I guess we'll see how well Ben does but for some reason I don't see him touching what Michael did.